## Facts

- Cathy Hines was charged with theft based on an alleged shoplifting incident at a Walmart.
- At trial, the disputed element focused on whether Hines intended to steal the merchandise.
- Hines called her cousin, Ella Rushing, as a defense witness.
- Rushing testified that, in her view, Hines did not intend to steal from the store.
- The State called two Walmart employees, identified as Lindsay and Okwuonu, who observed Hines during the incident.
- Over Hines’s objection, the trial court allowed the employees to testify in the form of lay opinions that Hines intended to steal.
- The jury found Hines guilty, and she appealed the conviction.

## Issues

1. Did the trial court err by admitting the Walmart employees’ lay opinion testimony that Hines intended to steal?
2. Were the employees’ opinions admissible under Texas Rule of Evidence 701 as rationally based on their own observations and helpful to determining intent, even though the opinions addressed an ultimate issue?

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed Hines’s theft conviction.
- The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the Walmart employees’ testimony as lay opinion regarding Hines’s intent.
- The court reasoned that the testimony was tied to the employees’ first-hand observations of Hines’s conduct and was offered to help the jury decide whether the State proved intent.
- The court rejected the argument that the opinions were inadmissible solely because they spoke to the ultimate issue of intent.

## Legal Principles

- Under Texas Rule of Evidence 701, a lay witness may offer opinion testimony if it is (1) rationally based on the witness’s perception and (2) helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue.
- Lay opinion may address intent when the opinion is a shorthand conclusion drawn from observed conduct, rather than speculation untethered from what the witness saw.
- Testimony is not excluded merely because it bears on an ultimate issue; admissibility still turns on whether the opinion meets the Rule 701 requirements and does not amount to a bare legal conclusion.
- When the witness provides the underlying observations, the jury remains free to accept or reject the opinion and to draw its own conclusion about intent.

## Conclusion

Hines v. State affirmed a theft conviction arising from an alleged Walmart shoplifting incident, holding that store employees who personally observed the defendant could offer lay opinions that she intended to steal because the opinions were based on their own observations and assisted the jury in deciding intent under Texas Rule of Evidence 701, even though the testimony related to an ultimate issue.


Hines v. State, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 3256 (2006)